What's new

9\11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB

The Pakistani peopole should realise it is THEIR war too, not just the USA's.

It is your homes and your futures that are being destroyed, along with the fabric of civil society.

The sooner this realisation sinks in, the more likely it is to improve the situation, (if it is already not too late).

Bro... I can't agree with you there. Where was the Taliban terrorism before Pakistan joined the war? Why are our civilians dying because of America's liberation? Why was TTP established after we entered the war?

It is not 'our' war. It is nobody's war. US had no real reason to enter Afghanistan except to keep their weapons industry going and to maintain their army. A superpower like America needs wars to keep their military might. Guess what war they chose to create.
 
Bro... I can't agree with you there. Where was the Taliban terrorism before Pakistan joined the war? Why are our civilians dying because of America's liberation? Why was TTP established after we entered the war?

It is not 'our' war. It is nobody's war. US had no real reason to enter Afghanistan except to keep their weapons industry going and to maintain their army. A superpower like America needs wars to keep their military might. Guess what war they chose to create.

You may be right that, whatever its genesis, it was not Pakistan's war of choice, but like it or not, NOW it is a war of survival for Pakistan, nothing more and nothing less.

me thinks its you thats living on borrowed time
:china::pakistan::sniper:

You are free to think whatever you like! :)
 
You may be right that, whatever its genesis, it was not Pakistan's war of choice, but like it or not, NOW it is a war of survival for Pakistan, nothing more and nothing less.

What other choices we have right now is unknown to me. But fighting this was is definitely a wrong choice.
 
What other choices we have right now is unknown to me. But fighting this was is definitely a wrong choice.

As a peaceful person by natuire, I agree with you that that war is a wrong choice.

However, the choices are rapidly dwindling for Pakistan on many levels.
 
say this to all the profs at my university that studyied wtc and found out sir that in no way wtc could collaps soo fast and with such pinpoint collapsing methods like controaled demolition .
Hmmm...What are their architectural/construction credentials?

...more and more people are finding out the truth you sir ignor it beacuse the way you where brought up to belive that the goverment loves and cares for you. tell me you would be still here when the cuban missel chrises your goverment had no seconds thoughts to nuke one of its own major cities . ww3? you would be here defending without knowing the truth ? correct?
Hmmm...The Petronas Towers in Malaysia, a muslim country, are taller than the WTC Towers. Not only are the Petronas taller than the WTC but also newer, built with and from the accumulated knowledge from the WTC and other spectacularly tall structures from around the world. Are the Petronas' builders part of this 'more and more people'? May be they are too busy...:rolleyes:...to read the technical reports from the WTC Towers' collapse...:lol:?

Try to think critically...If the WTC Towers are considered useless and should be done away with, they would be dismantled piece by piece, floor by floor, in a methodical and as safe as possible methods. Every architectural/construction firms in the world would want to be in on this project, if only to learn how to dismantle such structures should they ever need to do so.

But instead, the way the WTC Towers collapsed on Sept 11, 2001, I would think that given the well known stature of the WTC Towers, old as they are, their collapse would draw attention from accomplished builders from all over the world. And yet they have been silent and the best argument that you can come up with is 'all the profs at my university'...:lol:?
 
them towers didnt fall, they imploded from top to bottom disintegrated in to dust even before they touched the ground at free fall speed defies gravity .
This tells me you are a 12-yr old trying to play adult. Everything you posted have been debunked before many times over.
 
wt7?

molten metal found?

the blessed passport?

NORAD failing to react?

terrorist insurance taken out only a few months before the incident?



there are probably more but each one of the above are simply so coincidental that NOT to ask questions is plain dumb

...or they have no explanation at all
 
wt7?

molten metal found?

the blessed passport?

NORAD failing to react?

terrorist insurance taken out only a few months before the incident?



there are probably more but each one of the above are simply so coincidental that NOT to ask questions is plain dumb

...or they have no explanation at all
Debunked...All of them...:D
 
Debunked...All of them...:D

thats what you dont get, some of them simply do not have a rational debunking, to insist there is an unchallengeable refutation is a lit

take for example the passport surviving - that was completely against the odds - but the very fact that you insist there is a "debunking" of it proves paranoia, you do not want to admit that there were some unexplainable against the odd's events - probably because you are afraid where it will lead to?
 
thats what you dont get, some of them simply do not have a rational debunking, to insist there is an unchallengeable refutation is a lit

take for example the passport surviving - that was completely against the odds - but the very fact that you insist there is a "debunking" of it proves paranoia, you do not want to admit that there were some unexplainable against the odd's events - probably because you are afraid where it will lead to?
Debunked...That has been rehashed ad nauseum and you failed to prove that the passport's survival from the fire is any more statistically outrageous than any other items. Just like how there are plenty of tall building constructors who reject these loony conspiracy theories, same for statisticians. Yep...These professionals must be 'paranoid' as well...:rolleyes:
 
ok now what does experts say!!!!

Civil Engineers from Stavanger ( Norway ):

Asking politicians to ask what really happened 11 September

- The official explanation violates the laws of physics. It said two civil engineers in mechanical engineering. They requested the Norwegian politicians and the media ask critical questions as to why the World Trade Center towers 1, 2 and 7 collapsed.



They are two very ordinary civil engineering degree at the Technical College and works with process in the oil industry. One is an employee of StatoilHydro, the second in a consulting company. Political positions them as follows:

- We belong on the right in Norwegian politics, "says Jan Hundseid to Aftenbladet.

- The United States is a top country with friendly and nice people. Our criticism has nothing to do with right or left politics to do, but with right and wrong, "said his brother Ove Hundseid.

Got a shock

- Why did you get interested you for 11 September-attack?

- We sat at a friend who suddenly said that the WTC towers were blown up, "says Ove. -. At first we were shocked. But he said it, is a talented and wise man who can rely on.

Eventually, the two checked on the internet. The ordered films that examine television footage from when the twin towers collapsed. Film of how the WTC Building 7 fell 7-8 hours later, they have also gone through.

- The laws of nature can not explain how the towers races down in near freefall speed, and left behind as dust.

Strong core

WTC Twin Towers 1 and 2 were built in the late 1960's. The buildings were about 415 feet high, 63 x 63 meters wide and had 110 floors. Each of the towers weighed 5-700000 tons. A fifth of this was pure steel.

- They were designed to withstand hurricane and being hit by planes. It was also taken account of fire due to jet fuel, "said Jan.

- The towers had a core composed of 47 massive steel beams thick, thicker than those normally used in buildings, "says Ove.

He outlines how each tower was struck by their own aircraft.

- If we accept that the floors around the steel core collapsed due to fire after flytreffet, it is impossible to understand that no steel core remained in the middle of the ruins.

Not hot enough

The official explanation for the collapse of the Twin Towers says that the heat from the fires made the steel softer and therefore collapsed. This rejects Jan and Ove Hundseid.

They get support from Kevin Ryan, an employee of the company that certified the steel used. He told the NIST Commission chairman that if the core reached a heat 450gr C, the steel would still retain 75 percent of its strength.

1560gr C needed to melt steel building. Such a temperature can be no ordinary fire can not come up in.

- By the black smoke rising for a while after the planes hit, we see that there was no good combustion, "says Jan.

- It's like when you throttle a gas appliance, and it starts to smut. Poor combustion means it was not very hot, "says Ove.

Their point of view is confirmed by the official NIST report says that the highest temperature Mon identified on an exterior steel beam was 250gr C.

Crushed to dust

The official NIST report states that the WTC 1, the north tower collapsed in 11 seconds, WTC-2 in the south at 9 seconds.

The collapse should have occurred by gravity alone. Each floor should have crushed the underlying as a pannekakeras. Falls resulting in enormous clouds of dust that settled over Manhattan when the towers were pulverized.

- This can not possibly vote. If you drop a large piece of reinforced concrete from 200 meters high, it will smash to bits, do not turn into dust, "says Ove. -. After 110 races floors on top of each other, it should been left a 30-40 meter high pile of rubble.

Must be calculated

When Jan Hundseid recently participated in the Aftenbladet online debate about this, he was opposed by submitting one who thought the gravitational energy was strong enough to pulverize everything. What do the brothers of that?

- This is a difficult calculation. Some of the energy used to deform the steel, something to pulverize the concrete and some were transferred in fall speed, "says Ove.

- If one is to figure out the use of energy in the given case, the speed, one must also take into account that the remnants of iron beams were ejected over the neighboring buildings during the fall, "said Jan.

He reminds us that there is no official analysis of how the buildings were broken down by 9.11 seconds. NIST only analyzed how the collapse started, not the actual collapse.

- It is absolutely necessary to accomplish such an analysis to find out how the massive steel structures could collapse completely in such a short time, "said Jan.

Billiard ball

The American engineering professor Judy Wood has made parts of the calculation that Hundseid brothers calling for. Last fall she published a webnotat called "A refutation of the official collapse theory."



Notice that the top part of the cure foam's unmatched WCT Tower starts to crumble before the damaged area begins to move downward, writes physics professor Judy Wood.
She has figured out that if you dropped a billiard ball in a vacuum from the top of the WTC towers, it will use 9.22 seconds down to the ground.

Then let it not possible that 110 floors collapsing just as fast (9-11 seconds, according to NIST) as the gravitational energy will be used to pulverize concrete, hurling the debris from adjacent buildings and smash on the floor floor in the fall.

Wood expects that the shorter the time it would take for each floor to collapse in the next, like dominoes, would have been 96.7 seconds, more than a half minute.

January Hundseid commenting Woods analysis as follows:

- It is so well illustrated by calculations and pictures that should lead to new official assessments of the collapse of the towers. What we ask for is an even more thorough analysis than what Wood has done. The entire building must be analyzed using the computer programs.

Explosives



If the energy is used to pulverize the floors above and beyond, as this picture shows, not the same power while accelerating down the building, resonating Judy Wood.
How then could the twin towers collapse so quickly?

- It must have been used explosives down the floor, I think Jan and Ove Hundseid.

When they see television footage of the towers in slow motion, add the brand to small explosions that go horizontally from the walls far below and before the collapse at this level.

- Some say this is the air being pushed out, but I think it is similar such explosions as seen under a controlled demolition, "says Ove.

- We have also seen footage of the firefighters who helped after the attacks. Both they and the reporters said that they heard several explosions in the basements of the towers. Television footage from the lobby of one tower shows that everything was blown out, which can be difficult because the plane hit 80 floors higher up, "said Jan.

Building 7

In the case of WTC Building 7, which collapsed at. 17.20 the same day, according Hundseid brothers that there is no doubt that the collapse was a controlled demolition.

- It collapsed completely symmetrical at 6.5 seconds. The laws of nature do not allow that this could have happened without the help of explosives.

- But who shall have failed to bring in as much as the dynamite needed to blow up these buildings?

Jan and Ove Hundseid have no answer for this. They have just one wish:

- That there must be a new investigation, so 11/9-Sannhetsbevegelsen want.

Open letter

Friday 16 November they saw a notice in Stavanger Aftenblad that the newspaper's Good Weekend supplements would contain an article on 11 September attacks. They had a couple of months working on authoring a letter with a number of internet links and create 27 sets of copies of two DVDs to attach.

The letter sums up what the media has reported on events before and after 11 September 2001 and urges recipients to ask critical questions.

- I said to Ove that now we have only sent out what we have worked with.

So they sent two engineers an open letter to all the Norwegian Storting, the prime minister, defense minister and foreign minister, as well as several media.

- What kind of response did you?

- Very small. Progress Party Member of Parliament Ulf Erik Knudsen asked us to stop sending him such a spray. He suggested that we make contact with NTH to refund tuition, "said Jan, looking for given his brother.

- Commenting on corporation was asked if it is "time to get conspiratorial?" No, my answer is, but it is time to ask for the facts, "said Jan.

- For those who want to familiarize themselves with the collapse of WTC 1, 2 and 7, I recommend the documentary 911 Mysteries Part 1: Demolition as can be seen on video.google.com end Ove and adds:

- If the official explanation is correct, the standard for high-rise buildings must be changed.

There have not yet heard any demand.

kristin.aalen @ aftenbladet.no


Ber politikerne spørre hva som egentlig skjedde 11. september - Stavanger Aftenblad
 
Debunked...That has been rehashed ad nauseum and you failed to prove that the passport's survival from the fire is any more statistically outrageous than any other items. Just like how there are plenty of tall building constructors who reject these loony conspiracy theories, same for statisticians. Yep...These professionals must be 'paranoid' as well...:rolleyes:

you dont prove negatives silly, prove the positive - in other words talk me through the possibility of something within the plane surviving the inferno.

to ensure we are comparing apples with apples please ensure that it is something within the plane, preferably made of paper and intact after the explosions and inferno.



let me repeat


to ensure we are comparing apples with apples please ensure that it is something within the plane, preferably made of paper and intact after the explosions and inferno.




what you will find is there is nothing comparable and impossible to rationally explain - but heck you insist it is.
 
you dont prove negatives silly, prove the positive - in other words talk me through the possibility of something within the plane surviving the inferno.
Correct...Now prove how is it statistically impossible that a piece of paper, or an aircraft part, or human flesh, could survive the fire. Remember...All of those items were found.

to ensure we are comparing apples with apples please ensure that it is something within the plane, preferably made of paper and intact after the explosions and inferno.
And there were. To be 'intact' does not necessarily have to be undamaged. This is a deception best reserved for 12-yr olds.
 
Correct...Now prove how is it statistically impossible that a piece of paper, or an aircraft part, or human flesh, could survive the fire. Remember...All of those items were found.

apparently you dont understand english.

you claim that the objects surviving is not that unlikely - well please prove the positive and give me its probability, you already claim to know how statistically likely it was for anything to survive.

then do 1-"your answer" and you have the answer to your question, that will tell you how unlikely it was!!:wave::wave:

And there were. To be 'intact' does not necessarily have to be undamaged. This is a deception best reserved for 12-yr olds.


the passport was pretty much in perfect condition - so to ensure we are comparing apples with apples i ask for something similar, a fragment of a plane and a completely in tact passport are hardly the same.


also, please refer to me a link that says human remains from passengers within the plane were found, that is of interest to me
 
ok now what does experts say!!!!

Civil Engineers from Stavanger ( Norway ):

Asking politicians to ask what really happened 11 September

- The official explanation violates the laws of physics. It said two civil engineers in mechanical engineering. They requested the Norwegian politicians and the media ask critical questions as to why the World Trade Center towers 1, 2 and 7 collapsed.



They are two very ordinary civil engineering degree at the Technical College and works with process in the oil industry. One is an employee of StatoilHydro, the second in a consulting company.
Correct...But they need to take the issue up to their peers, not with the general public. You do know the process call 'peer review', no? Anyway...The fact that they provide NO technical papers to their engineering peers, particularly in architectural/construction fields, should be a glaring red flag that they have -- NOTHING -- other than what they mindlessly regurgitated from loony 9/11 conspiracy websites.

Got a shock

- Why did you get interested you for 11 September-attack?

- We sat at a friend who suddenly said that the WTC towers were blown up, "says Ove. -. At first we were shocked. But he said it, is a talented and wise man who can rely on.
No names? Why not? An anonymous source should be another red flag for critical thinkers. Obviously you do not belong in this category.

Eventually, the two checked on the internet. The ordered films that examine television footage from when the twin towers collapsed. Film of how the WTC Building 7 fell 7-8 hours later, they have also gone through.

- The laws of nature can not explain how the towers races down in near freefall speed, and left behind as dust.
It was not 'near freefall speed'. This has been debunked many times over. And the towers were not constructed of steel but also with concrete and drywall. They will produce dust. Funny how these engineers conveniently omit this. And they said they have no political agenda in this? :rolleyes:

Strong core

WTC Twin Towers 1 and 2 were built in the late 1960's. The buildings were about 415 feet high, 63 x 63 meters wide and had 110 floors. Each of the towers weighed 5-700000 tons. A fifth of this was pure steel.

- They were designed to withstand hurricane and being hit by planes. It was also taken account of fire due to jet fuel, "said Jan.
I will give some homework, this mean exercise some critical thinking skills. Go outside and stand in 10km/h wind. Then have a friend drive his car at 10km/h and hit you. Come back and report to the readers which will give you more physical injuries...:D

I see no need to debunk the rest the moment I see this grossly inappropriate argument by these 'engineers'. They should know better the differences between aerodynamic forces acting on a body versus physical impact on that same body.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom